Do We Have To Stick To Dictionaries
Do We Have To Stick To DictionariesPrinciplesObjectivesAndGoals continued. -- MartineDevos
The American Heritage Dictionary
-- DavidOrr?
Definition:
We were just talking about whether an objective is a collection (or sequence) of goals, or vice versa. So yes, that could be the other way around. As a group we seems to be of two camps, and that's fine - it depends mostly on what one is accustomed to.
This can be confusing, and arguably the unclear distinction can lead to half-baked strategic thinking. Certainly a common understanding might lead to some productive pattern mining in this area. It should! Goals, Objectives, Strategies, Tactics, and Milestones are the stuff of software projects.
Assuming this might lead somewhere <s>, I propose that, for the moment, we consider Objective to be ulterior to a Goal.
Note that an objective can itself be a goal in a wider objective. Possibly an objective _is_a_ goal (a type of Goal), and at the same time a collection or sequence of goals. This means that we can have minor goals, bundled into wider objectives, and still possess a notion of Ultimate Goal in the sense that you seem to refer to it.
Example: Immediate goal: Park the car. Wider objective: Get things done in town, which is a goal in the wider objective of providing for one's family, which itself is a goal in the wider objective of being a good father, and so on, which all fits into the Ulterior Goal, the Ultimate Objective, of achieving happiness, or whatever.
Do we have general agreement that Strategy relates to ulterior abstract things, and Tactics refer to to immediate concrete things, or do we need to flesh this out?
I'm convinced that if we can agree on basic terminology, we may find patterns of Planning, Coordination, Execution, Leadership, and so on. -- StevenBlack
I'm afraid I disagree that goal and objective have the same meaning in current business literature. If we sticked to the dictionary - there are lots of examples - we would have discussion that are a lot less rich than what we are used to. -- MartineDevos
In the business literature I'm familiar with, Objective is ulterior to Goal. Objective is more abstract, Goal is more concrete. I've seen other variants. I'm using definitions supplied by Prof Ken Wong of Queen's University, under whom I studied.
I like the distinction along abstract and composition lines...
-- StevenBlack
Does ulterior relate to principles and values ? Part of the confusion may be due to the fact that we often discuss and mix objectives and goals at different levels of an organization and goals of organization with goals of our department...
By ulterior, I guess I mean encompassing.
I would venture further... to say a Goal is an item of immediate or concrete concern, something one can sight, or is within imminent sight. An Objective, on the other hand, is more removed in a temporal or collective or abstract sense.
Or vice-versa, as some may prefer. On a linguistics basis, I'd opt for the shorter word "Goal" for that which is imminent, and the three-syllable synonym "Objective" for the abstraction.
Other possible distinction (without putting too fine a point on it.): An Objective is a state transform, and Goals are nodes in the process. Objectives are achieved with Strategy, and Goals are achieved with Tactics. As time unfolds, Objectives spawn concrete Goals, and Strategies to hit these are implemented with Tactics.
Or vice versa <s>. -- StevenBlack
I didn't say that the words goal and objective have the same meaning in current business literature. Please read again what I did say.
I interrupted your discussion. Perhaps I shouldn't have. I don't have anything to contribute materially to the discussion. But I saw in what I read an example of what happens when we don't choose our terms carefully, and I felt the urge to point it out.
If you introduce in the business context or any other context different meanings for two words that mean the same thing to most people in everyday conversation, then you're assuring a certain degree of confusion among those who try to understand your ideas. The lesson is clear for those who want to communicate clearly.
I assume that you, Martine, are not the one who introduced different meanings for the words goal and objective in the business context. But don't you agree that the different meanings do lead to confusion?
Yes, Martine, the first place to look for the meaning of a word is the dictionary, either the one on the shelf or the one in your brain. It tells us the basic meaning that most people attach to the word.
-- Dalton
Yes and no. Once in a great while we can ascribe a new meaning to a common word; that's part of how language evolves. It's dangerous to do that with common words, because common words usually come without much context so they're open to wide interpretation and ambiguity. "Object" is an example and, unfortunately, so is "pattern." On the other hand "reification" has been co-opted by the OO community to mean something very specific; that works, because it's not a common word.
Faced with "goal" and "objective," most of us are faced with the same low-context problem: they're used to mean anything and everything. It's natural to resort to the dictionary - which seems to tell us that they're used for everything and anything.
I've been going through this debate with the Creativity community, too, which is trying to define common terms like creativity and innovation. What I'm going to suggest to them is the following:
It also points out the real problem: agreeing on the concept. Once we all agree that it's important to talk about a concept which means "some accomplishment that is foreseen and planned for completion at some roughly predicted future point in time," then we can use a dictionary to attach the appropriate word to it. If no words fit, then we can make something up or force-fit an existing word.
If we start with the words, the process is unlikely to converge, because common words are too broad to offer an adequate context for communication.
That's what's been happening here. We've been arguing the meaning of "goal" by focusing on the term. Occasionally the discussion leaks over into the conceptual space we're grappling with but, my gosh, for the most part you'd think we were linguists! (And, of course, most of us are, having studied a few programming languages.)
So let's back off the dictionary for a while and focus on the concepts. Once we enjoy the experience of consensus, we can get out the dictionary and find a suitable match. -- JimCoplien
I am trying to digest this.
A dictionary does not help much in trying to position goal and objective. But there is common usage in business context (or creativity and vision f.e.). In discussing the purpose of patterns someone felt the need to use the two terms in relation to each other.
I am not very fond of definition-discussions.
When we try to avoid the dictionary we will from to time use words we don't agree upon describing new concepts or ideas. But it seems that trying to avoid disagreement on terms we need to avoid lots of words (aim, purpose, objective, goal ...) What do we use? Do we agree on a context and use its terms.
What about frame as in framework.
Longman's is not much help there unless I am looking for picture-frames and the like. A computer-dictionary may give me something like A structure created on procedure application containing bindings and static and dynamic information regarding the procedure ...
Am I supposed to be familiar with cognitive science or f.e. Minsky'definition (datastructure for representing stereotyped situation)?
Is not reasoning becoming difficult, outside 'inner circles' sharing the same vocabulary.
Do we have to express everything using metaphors (like frame or pattern)?
Is this why we use Facade, Decorator or Pipeline as pattern-names ?
-- MartineDevos
EditText of this page
(last edited July 16, 2008)
or FindPage with title or text search